Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[Wacky Racer]

TTmonkey said:

Wacky Racer said:

Regarding THAT photograph, the girl seemed happy enough to be in his company at that time.

She might well have been having a good time. But if she was underage (by local law not the law 5000 miles away) and she was being coerced/controlled, then that’s totally irrelevant.


Breaking the law can be great fun.

If people are going to use that photograph as "evidence" they are on to a loser (imo), all it shows is two people together smiling, hardly a crime. Of course what may or may not have happened later that night, or another time, is another matter. It's one persons word against another.

[Escapegoat]

Wacky Racer said:

If people are going to use that photograph as "evidence" they are on to a loser (imo), all it shows is two people together smiling, hardly a crime. Of course what may or may not have happened later that night, or another time, is another matter. It's one persons word against another.

Except there's a third person in that photo...

[JuniorD]

Wacky Racer said:

TTmonkey said:

Wacky Racer said:

Regarding THAT photograph, the girl seemed happy enough to be in his company at that time.

She might well have been having a good time. But if she was underage (by local law not the law 5000 miles away) and she was being coerced/controlled, then that’s totally irrelevant.


Breaking the law can be great fun.

If people are going to use that photograph as "evidence" they are on to a loser (imo), all it shows is two people together smiling, hardly a crime. Of course what may or may not have happened later that night, or another time, is another matter. It's one persons word against another.

It’s evidence against any “I've never met this person” statement.

[Vizsla]

Escapegoat said:

Wacky Racer said:

If people are going to use that photograph as "evidence" they are on to a loser (imo), all it shows is two people together smiling, hardly a crime. Of course what may or may not have happened later that night, or another time, is another matter. It's one persons word against another.

Except there's a third person in that photo...

Yeah, hope for her sake she's not planning on going yachting any time soon. RIP Captain Bob bob bob

[Stay in Bed Instead]

JuniorD said:

It’s evidence against any “I've never met this person” statement.

He didn't state that though.

He stated he had no recollection of meeting her.

[Zirconia]

Escapegoat said:

Wacky Racer said:

If people are going to use that photograph as "evidence" they are on to a loser (imo), all it shows is two people together smiling, hardly a crime. Of course what may or may not have happened later that night, or another time, is another matter. It's one persons word against another.

Except there's a third person in that photo...

And someone taking the photo. They piped up yet?

Unless it was on a tripod and timer.

[Wacky Racer]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

JuniorD said:

It’s evidence against any “I've never met this person” statement.

He didn't state that though.

He stated he had no recollection of meeting her.

Indeed. (Although I suspect he does really)

[TTmonkey]

If Bill C can equate getting a blow job to “not having sexual relations” with a person then anything is possible for Randy Andy.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

yonex said:

He didn’t meet her. He fked her.

So at least in that regard he’s telling the truth.

So she says.

[TTmonkey]

Just watched the clip where he is told that the girl says they had sex in Belgravia flat and he just says he has no recollection of meeting this lady.

I’m sorry that not how you defend yourself from someone saying that if it’s not true. It’s just not how you deny something happened.


This tv interview is going to damn him in the future.

[CAPP0]

yonex said:

He didn’t meet her. He fked her.

So at least in that regard he’s telling the truth.

If he can do her without meeting her he must have a length like a hosepipe.

Or a gloryhole.

[anonymous-user]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

So she says.

Because Prince Andrew is such a stand up guy with impeccable morals.

Said nobody. Ever.

[mick987]

CAPP0 said:

If he can do her without meeting her he must have a length like a hosepipe.

Or a gloryhole.

Even then they would be a meeting.

[anonymous-user]

TTmonkey said:

Just watched the clip where he is told that the girl says they had sex in Belgravia flat and he just says he has no recollection of meeting this lady.

I’m sorry that not how you defend yourself from someone saying that if it’s not true. It’s just not how you deny something happened.


This tv interview is going to damn him in the future.

To be honest, I don’t think many people, even staunch royalists really like him. It’s less about fanning him for me, I want to see him prosecuted. Whilst the old guard are still alive.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

La Liga said:

Is he saying he doesn’t recall meeting the then 17 year old who is in the picture with him that’s been publicised for ages?

If so, it’s certainly an interesting approach to take.

If it's just a picture then I reckon it's reasonable for a defence. You must know of some considerably less believable concoctions which have got past a jury.

The idea of being in a picture with someone famous goes back a while. I've got a picture of me with another Windsor, this time Barbara, when I met her at some do. She was giving me a kiss. I doubt she remembers me.

Then again, I was a good looking bloke.

I think “I didn’t have sex with a girl who was underage in her home state” would have been a better defence.

Hopefully the interviewer presses him on his answer.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

yonex said:

Because Prince Andrew is such a stand up guy with impeccable morals.

Said nobody. Ever.

Does that make what she says true somehow?

[vonuber]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Does that make what she says true somehow?

Why would she lie?

[Stay in Bed Instead]

vonuber said:

Why would she lie?

I'm not saying she is.

We don't know if either of them are.

Doesn't stop some judging Andrew guilty though.

[anonymous-user]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

I'm not saying she is.

We don't know if either of them are.

Doesn't stop some judging Andrew guilty though.

I’d love to hear why you’re such a fan?

I think he’s guilty. The lengths the palace are going to, and the cover up generally would indicate so.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

yonex said:

I’d love to hear why you’re such a fan?

I think he’s guilty. The lengths the palace are going to, and the cover up generally would indicate so.

Oh I don't know really, perhaps the age old concept of innocent until proved guilty?

Feel free to stick to the bigoted stance though.

The Court of social media rules.